Shachar's coordination notice (P/146) included five tables. Four tables that refer to the four types of servers included in the content of the ID, so that each table has a description of the components of the server specification, and a summary of the price per unit of each server. Table 5 shows a summary of the quote for all configurations according to the number of units required from each server.
The Matrix proposal in Shohat's second e-mail (P/132) is almost identical. It consists of four tables. Three tables, which refer to three types of servers, are exactly the same as the tables in Shahar's coordination email. Full identity: plan and format (item description, unit price, blank line before price line, number of quequels; the only difference is in a certain increase in spacing). The notice here (P/132) did not include a single table that appeared in Shachar's coordination email (P/146) – that is the table that relates to the X3650 M3 servers, to which Shohat's first email message from noon (P/450) referred. In addition, the summary table in Shohat's second e-mail (P/132) is also exactly identical, in all the sums appearing therein, except for the total sum – where Shohat stated $395,860 and not $449,440.
- During their interrogations with the Authority, Shochat and Shachar were presented with Shachar's coordination notice (P/146). On the other hand, Shohat's second email message (P/132), which the accuser is currently relying on to substantiate her claim regarding Shohat's consent to the settlement, was not presented to Shochat or Shahar during their interrogations at the Authority. This is a substantive document. This raises a difficulty. In practice, Shachar and Shochat referred to this document – P/132 – for the first time during the testimonies in court and many years away from the events.
- In his testimony, Shohat did not have any explanation of the significant identity between Shachar's coordination message (P/146) and his second e-mail message, in which he submitted the Matrix proposal (P/132) only a short time after the coordination notice (e.g., p. 6888, paras. 4-11, p. 6885, paras. 17-23, p. 6889, paras. 14-21). In view of the significant identity between the documents, Shohat's version that he did not see Shachar's coordination notice (P/146) should be rejected. As stated above, the significant identity of the documents leaves no room for doubt that Shohat saw Shachar's coordination notice and that he copied significant parts of it into the Matrix proposal that he submitted (P/132).
Similarly, Shohat's version that he submitted the Matrix proposal on the basis of the hand he received from IBM should also be rejected. Shochat did not present the evidence by hand from IBM or a request by hand. The hand or the hand application was not found in Shohat's e-mail box (p. 6805, s. 5-6, p. 6901, paras. 11-12, it was copied by the accuser so that the copy remained in Shohat's possession, P/575, ch. 703 (p. 39); Shohat claimed that in view of the size of his e-mail box, he used to delete messages relating to projects in which he did not win, p. 6901, paras. 14-17; even though the accuser showed otherwise; see references, p. 6974, Sat. 13-17; Shohat refused the accuser's suggestion, which was raised only during the trial, to conduct a focused search of the matter in the matter of the seized material that was not investigative material, N/459 (p. 6); See also Miscellaneous Applications Criminal 6017/17 State of Israel v. Fischer at paragraph 30 (August 27, 2017); Shohat did not even make an appropriate request to the court on the matter). Shohat claimed investigative failures in this matter, including the fact that the accuser did not act to locate the hand vis-à-vis IBM, even though Shochat had already claimed in his interrogation with the authority that he had acted on the basis of such a hand (e.g., P/240, paras. 172-173, 182-183, 224-225). In response, the accuser presented data demands that she referred to IBM and Lenovo at the end of 2015 and the beginning of 2016, in which she also demanded requests that were received in the case of Balam Oranim (P/581, ZCD 969 (p. 90 of the file), ZCD 980 (p. 126 of the file), s. H. of the demands). In the circumstances of the case, the claim of investigative failures in failing to take action to locate IBM to Matrix should not be accepted. This argument cannot be changed. In view of the clear numerical and formal identity between Shachar's coordination message (P/146) and Shohat's second e-mail message (P/132), and the alternate scenario claimed that Shohat acted on a foundation by IBM, and miraculously reached the same prices as stated in Shahar's coordination notice, there is no feasibility or reasonableness.
- At the same time, Shohat's claim that he did not agree to coordinate a price with Shahar remains intact and that the price of Matrix's offer – as submitted in the second email (P/132) – was a total of $395,860, as opposed to what Shahar asked for (P/146).
- The accuser claimed that the identity of the documents, combined with Shohat's first email message (N/450), testified that Shohat acted to submit an offer in accordance with what Shachar had asked him to make. In doing so, she sought to support, in my understanding, both the claim that Shohat agreed to the coordination, and the claim that the coordination arrangement was even carried out in practice (even though the commission is not one of the elements of the offense).
In order to understand the accuser's approach, we will put before our eyes the summary tables of the two documents.